On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:27:56 +0200
Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> with a Jul 10 world, a clean /usr/obj and the sources as of yesterday I
> get
> ---snip---
> /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11739:75: missing terminating ' character
> /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:117
Hi,
with a Jul 10 world, a clean /usr/obj and the sources as of yesterday I
get
---snip---
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11739:75: missing terminating ' character
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11741:71: warning: multi-line string litera
ls are deprecated
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwar
Quoting Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Hi everyone,
|
| I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
| GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
| While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be
| incorporated i
Quoting Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Hi everyone,
|
| I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
| GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
| While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be
| incorporated i
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:53:18PM -0700, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
> GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
> While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes
Hi everyone,
I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be
incorporated into FSF CVS repository, I decided to make a patch
file available at
Hi,
your patch to cp/cp-lang.c fixed the build of kdelibs3 for me.
Thanks!
Bye!
Michael Reifenberger
^.*Plaut.*$, IT, R/3 Basis, GPS
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2002-09-02 08:52 +, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
> > ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
> > libiconv-1.8_1.
>
> It doesn't here.
> > cc -I. -I. -I../inc
On 2002-09-02 08:52 +, Steve Kargl wrote:
> To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
> ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
> libiconv-1.8_1.
It doesn't here. I've used my own meta-port to install all the usual
stuff I want to have
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:05:48PM -0700, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
> And how does one do that?
>
You never posted any error messages you were getting, so I can
only guess what is going on. The patch below gets rpm to compile
on my -current. Never tested it on -stable though, it might
break compiles
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:10:42PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> Have no idea what is your problem with linux_base, but rpm build fine
> here after one gets past __size_t and machine/types.h.
And how does one do that?
- alex
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe f
> Where can I find this patch? I didn't see it in the message body or attached to any
>of your previous messages.
Sorry,
apparently attachments are stripped now before being delivered
to the mailing lists. The patch is below:
Index: cp/cp-lang.c
==
The patch I sent is reversed. Use patch -R to apply.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:20:49 -0700
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe
> > -march=pentiumpro -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo
> ^
>
> Maybe "-march=*" doesn't work?
I traced it down to bro
Andrea Campi wrote:
> > > cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe\
> > > -march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo
> > ^
>
> I get the same error on a P3:
>
> cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe
> -march=
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:27:45 -0700
Alex Zepeda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm seeing the exact same thing. I can't install linux_base either,
> nor can I build rpm.
Have no idea what is your problem with linux_base, but rpm build fine
here after one gets past __size_t and machine/types.h.
-
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 12:29:23AM +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
> I tried CFLAGS with "-O[1|2]" and with or without "-march=-pentium3".
> Always the same error.
>
> Anyone else?
I'm seeing the exact same thing. I can't install linux_base either, nor
can I build rpm.
- alex
To Unsubscr
At 12:29 AM 9/3/2002 +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
>Hi,
>with -current I get during compiling kdelibs3 (and after successfully compiling
>qt3 and arts):
>...
>c++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../dcop -I../libltdl -I../kdecore -I../kdeui
>-I../kio -I../kio/kio -I../kio/kfile -I/usr/X11R6/inc
Hi,
with -current I get during compiling kdelibs3 (and after successfully compiling
qt3 and arts):
...
c++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../dcop -I../libltdl -I../kdecore -I../kdeui
-I../kio -I../kio/kio -I../kio/kfile -I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/local/include -
pthread -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -I/usr
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:01:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
> > ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
> > libiconv-1.8_1.
> >
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:10:11 -0700
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:08:41PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> > BTW, the bug is present in official 3.2 release too.
>
> What about 3.1.1 release?
I have GCC 3.1.1 port installed on STABLE. libiconv barf when co
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 10:21:13PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > > Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla again.
> > > This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter a patch,
> > > and update the Mozilla people.
> >
> > My understanding from watchi
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:08:41PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> BTW, the bug is present in official 3.2 release too.
What about 3.1.1 release?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not a GCC fault. The bug is in internal gettext library gmake is linked
> with. I looked into read_alias_file function and I simply cannot believe
> what I am seeing there.
PR ports/41075.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [E
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:01:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
> > ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
> > libiconv-1.8_1.
> >
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:06:31 -0400
Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do they really believe malloc
^^^ I meant realloc here.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Not a GCC fault. The bug is in internal gettext library gmake is linked
with. I looked into read_alias_file function and I simply cannot believe
what I am seeing there. Do they really believe malloc is supposed to
resize memory in-place all the time? Look what happens with map[0-n]
elements every
Okay. In case it matters, world builds with -march=athlon set.
You may want to add a entry to src/UPDATING about the new
gcc 3.2 and any apparent "gotcha's" (like the problem with
-march=athlon).
--
Steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:01:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
> > ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
> > libiconv-1.8_1.
> >
BTW, the bug is present in official 3.2 release too.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:52:56 -0700
Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> O -pipe -march=athlon
^^
This bug is in GCC PR database. Do not use -march=athlon for now.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in t
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
> ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
> libiconv-1.8_1.
>
>
> cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe\
>
To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
libiconv-1.8_1.
cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe -march=athlon -c
./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo
In file included from gbk
Today (after GCC 3.2 import and makeworld) I
try to upgrade 'gmake' port and resulting 'gmake' command
dumps core in the libc's 'qsort'.
When I make 'gmake' without "--with-included-gettext"
option it work - at least I ca
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> >
> > I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
> > about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
> > this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibili
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
>
> I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
> about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
> this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of
> unexpected delays, so pl
you've brought up in this thread
> have been *heavily* discussed in the public mailing list over the
> past month. Just two weeks ago there was a heated discussion over
> whether to import gcc 3.2, or leapfrog it and wait for 3.3. There
> have been many more discussions like it.
>
> Scott
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
> > > totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> > > this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> > > just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
> >
> > The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
> >
> > 3.1 prerelease -> 3.2 is a
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > > totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> > > > this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> > > > just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
> > >
> > > The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgr
what's going on in other mailing lists, and it
probably wasn't appropriate in any context. Please note, hovever,
that many of the concerns that you've brought up in this thread
have been *heavily* discussed in the public mailing list over the
past month. Just two weeks ago the
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:14 PM, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
>> Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
>> experience.
>
> I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big
> troll hunt and everyone is being accused.
>
I wouldn't call it trolling
>
>>>>> Yes, as best as I can.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
>>>>
>>>> To quote Robert Watson:
>>>>
>>>>> My list basically consists of:
>>&
> Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
> experience.
I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big
troll hunt and everyone is being accused.
--
David W. Chapman Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBS
> Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >
> > > > Yes, as best as I can.
> > > >
> > > > But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
> > >
> > > To quote Robert Watson:
> > >
> > > > My list basicall
Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> > > Yes, as best as I can.
> > >
> > > But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
> >
> > To quote Robert Watson:
> >
> > > My list basically consists of:
> > > Ge
Totally off-topic for this thread, sorry.
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:58:54PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> To quote Robert Watson:
>
> > My list basically consists of:
> > General
> > - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
> > dependencies
Note: I have tried bringing
> > Yes, as best as I can.
> >
> > But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
>
> To quote Robert Watson:
>
> > My list basically consists of:
> > General
> > - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, relat
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:51:52PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> >
> > Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail?
>
> Yes, as best as I can.
>
> But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
> My list basica
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
> Joe Marcus Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla
> > again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter
> > a patch, and
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Marcus Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla
> again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter
> a patch, and update the Mozilla people.
>
> Joe
Why would that chan
>
> Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail?
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Martin Blapp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> > this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> > just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
>
> The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:23:58PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> This is the same as using RELENG_4_6 (ie, 4.6-SECURE) in something. We
> get bug fixes (that must work on *all* supported GCC arches). The risk
> is _well_ mitigated.
>
> Why is everyone second guessing Kan on this import??? It w
ug 2002 23:26:09 -0400 (20:26 PDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:19:11 -0400 (EDT)
Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we can manage it, we also need a compiler upgrade for the base
> system. Right now we can't build usable gif support in QT with the
>
ompanies I've worked
> > at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are
> > firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done.
> > Go back to sleep.
>
> Would you rather that we ship with a known broken prerelease
ou rather that we ship with a known broken prerelease compiler?
Would you rather that we changed from 3.1-prerelease to 3.1.1-release?
gcc-3.2 *is* 'gcc-3.1.1 + ABI bugfix'. They renamed the 3.1 branch to 3.2.
All future 3.1.x releases will be called 3.2.x.
Cheers,
-Peter
--
P
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:00:34PM -0700, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
>
> Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix
> it now than later, wh
I should note that I'm raising more of a flag than normal.
This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked
at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are
firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done.
Go back to sleep.
On
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
> Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
> > development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
> > working pr
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix
it now than later, when people will actually expect it to work.
I also dislike the apparent
Hi,
> totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
3.1 prerelease -> 3.2 is a little step which f
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
> development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
> working productively for around a month due to various this thats an
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:50:50PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't
> recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
To Unsubscri
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
> > wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
>
> This is really 3.1.1 --
tthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
> > wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
>
> Some well known problem present in our current GCC snapshot appear to be
> fixed in 3.2.
>
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
> wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3.2 fixes a bug
that changes the API so
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
> wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
Some well known problem present in our current GCC snapshot appear to be
f
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
> about ten minutes. This task should not t
I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of
unexpected delays, so please be patient.
Please respond immediately if you feel
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 01:04:55PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Blah Terry, TOTALLY 110% INCORRECT. The situation was the same as our
> > FreeBSD 3.x users that still post PR's against RELENG_3 and want us to
> > fix things. Even where there was complete patches against 2.94.3
> > available;
David O'Brien wrote:
> > > > And we all know how successful that was, right?
> > >
> > > On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC
> > > 2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this
> > > deeply satisfying experiment again?
> >
> > That was beca
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:47:47PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > And we all know how successful that was, right?
> >
> > On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC
> > 2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this
> > deeply satisfying experi
mb> The situation is very unpleasant.
IIRC, we have no active GCC maintainer, no matter you feel unpleasant or not...
-- -
Makoto `MAR' Matsushita
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Hi,
> I think if you search the mailinglist archive you will find your answer
> quickly (it has been addressed several times).
Thanks, yes found it. But with the answers I'm very unpleased. I really
really hope that we import either 3.2 or 3.3 now. Personally I'd
go with 3.2.
The fact is that
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 03:27:31PM +0200, Martin Blapp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Any plans or ideas when gcc3.2 will be imported ?
>
> Martin
>
I think if you search the mailinglist archive you will find your answer
quickly (it has been addressed several times).
--
Morten Rodal
//
// PGP ID 2D755
Hi,
Any plans or ideas when gcc3.2 will be imported ?
Martin
Martin Blapp, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
ImproWare AG, UNIXSP & ISP, Zurlindenstrasse 29, 4133 Pratteln, CH
Phone: +41 061 826 93 00: +41 61 826 93 01
PG
According to Terry Lambert:
> There's always waiting for 3.3 to be released before trying to
> incorporate it...
There are too many code generation bugs in our version right now. Some
ports need 3.1.1 from ports (remember our gcc is 3.1-prerelease).
I don't care about 3.2 or 3.3, but I'd say go
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> > Can *you* absolutely *guarantee* no binary incompatabilities
> > between 3.3, as it sits now, in experimental form, and the final
> > release of 3.3? If not, then I don't see why are exploding at
> > me.
>
> 3.1-pre to 3.2 upgrade breaks compatibility already. Can you
> It was also about trolling the mailing lists to cause just this
> sort of heated discussion (congradulations on playing into
> Jesse Gross's trolling here).
This was *not* about trolling the mailing list. I wish I were
intelligent enough to predict the behavior of thousands of people, most
of w
volunteer to import a new version of GCC into -CURRENT myself, if
there are no objections and if nobody is doing that already. I think
David got a point though and I want his proposal to be discussed more.
GCC 3.2 is an interim release and under no circumstances we should get
tied to it through all t
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> We are not _releasing_ our own version of GCC and we do not invent
> our own version numbers for it, so your attempt to compare us with
> RedHat is unjustified. Again, FreeBSD 5.0 will be in no shape for
> serious production use and putting GCC 3.2 there jus
[FreeBSD]
> Just like RedHat jumped the gun on the compiler release.
We are not _releasing_ our own version of GCC and we do not invent
our own version numbers for it, so your attempt to compare us with
RedHat is unjustified. Again, FreeBSD 5.0 will be in no shape for
serious production use and
Jesse Gross wrote:
> Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
>
> Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
> anything.
>
> It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
> line of 5.x releases.
I believe David O'br
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> The idea is to move to gcc 3.3-pre _now_ If GCC 3.2 has C++ ABI
> kinks worked out, GCC 3.3 surely has the same code in. GCC developers
> are trying to keep C++ ABI compatible between 3.2 and 3.3, but they are
> not giving any guaranrtees.
Cool.
We can call
t of
> the way, rather than wait for the last second to move to gcc33,
> then have to delay FreeBSD 5.0 because everything in c++ land is
> broken.
The idea is to move to gcc 3.3-pre _now_ If GCC 3.2 has C++ ABI
kinks worked out, GCC 3.3 surely has the same code in. GCC developers
are tr
>
>
> > Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we
> > will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The
> > important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work?
>
> Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetim
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:59:11AM -0600, Long, Scott wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
> >
> > Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
> > anything.
> >
> > It would give us
> Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we
> will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The
> important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work?
Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release
will be pretty shor
>
> Hi,
>
> Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
>
> Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
> anything.
>
> It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
> line of 5.x releases.
>
> Just a thoug
Hi,
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x releases.
Just a thought.
Jesse Gross
What stance is being taken regarding moving to the gcc 3.2 release for the
current branch given that 3.2 produces far better code than previous
releases.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
91 matches
Mail list logo
